In the fine article is a mention of using nuclear power as an alternative to coal, it is about time this happened. There's been papers written on how to get away from burning coal for at least 50 years and those that actually showed their math pointed out that we aren't getting away from coal if we don't build a whole bunch of nuclear power plants.
What concerns me is the mention of biomass fuels, that's burning food. It may not be burning food directly like with corn ethanol but it would still be removing
If there are no concrete and costly penalties for not hitting the target and no enforcement mechanism in place, then this is just words. No party to this agreement would allow such penalties or enforcement mechanisms to exist. The reason the won't allow them to exist is that they have absolutely no intention of actually keeping to the targets. They just want the positive press saying they are tackling climate change without the pain of actually having to do something meaningful.
Ever notice when rich corrupt people get together to discuss how to enrich themselves further at the expense of those they “represent”, they always seem to have a ‘deal’ or an ‘agreement’, but never really a plan?
Tends to explain why politicians native tongue is half-truth spoken with a bullshit brogue.
That likely won't stand. The EPA has already been slapped down by the Supreme Court once for attempting to regulate CO2 as a pollutant when the Clean Air Act doesn't explicitly list CO2 as a pollutant.
The EU is great for virtual signaling, but when the EU decides to starve its people of power, it just means China, India, Russia, and other BRICS countries advance, because they don't give a shit about rolling coal, if it helps their economy... and the US and EU will slavishly buy goods from those countries because they are cheaper.
Those paying attention will note that Russia and China are making large investments in nuclear power right now. I agree that BRICS care little about how much coal they burn, they care more about getting the most energy out with the least effort put in. This effort put in can be measured directly or indirectly as energy, and we know how different energy sources rate on energy return on energy invested.
Before about 1950 the highest EROEI was achieved with hydroelectric power and fossil fuels. We can
In the fine article is a mention of using nuclear power as an alternative to coal, it is about time this happened. There's been papers written on how to get away from burning coal for at least 50 years and those that actually showed their math pointed out that we aren't getting away from coal if we don't build a whole bunch of nuclear power plants.
What concerns me is the mention of biomass fuels, that's burning food. It may not be burning food directly like with corn ethanol but it would still be removing
If there are no concrete and costly penalties for not hitting the target and no enforcement mechanism in place, then this is just words. No party to this agreement would allow such penalties or enforcement mechanisms to exist. The reason the won't allow them to exist is that they have absolutely no intention of actually keeping to the targets. They just want the positive press saying they are tackling climate change without the pain of actually having to do something meaningful.
Ever notice when rich corrupt people get together to discuss how to enrich themselves further at the expense of those they “represent”, they always seem to have a ‘deal’ or an ‘agreement’, but never really a plan?
Tends to explain why politicians native tongue is half-truth spoken with a bullshit brogue.
That likely won't stand. The EPA has already been slapped down by the Supreme Court once for attempting to regulate CO2 as a pollutant when the Clean Air Act doesn't explicitly list CO2 as a pollutant.
Only Congress could kill coal in such a fashion.
Energy is wealth.
Indeed.
The EU is great for virtual signaling, but when the EU decides to starve its people of power, it just means China, India, Russia, and other BRICS countries advance, because they don't give a shit about rolling coal, if it helps their economy... and the US and EU will slavishly buy goods from those countries because they are cheaper.
Those paying attention will note that Russia and China are making large investments in nuclear power right now. I agree that BRICS care little about how much coal they burn, they care more about getting the most energy out with the least effort put in. This effort put in can be measured directly or indirectly as energy, and we know how different energy sources rate on energy return on energy invested.
Before about 1950 the highest EROEI was achieved with hydroelectric power and fossil fuels. We can